Guess
what Democrat, gun grabbers? Your hero JFK believed in the 2nd
Amendment, not for hunting, not for skeet shooting, not for personal
home defense, but for "the defense of the country".

"By
calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the
nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our
founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our
economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of
governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an
important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in
which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his
country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be
important." - John F. Kennedy, 1960

If JFK were alive today, he would be a "right wing nutjob" fighting for
the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment against far left wing ideologues
like Obama who have destroyed his party.

Top Opinion

This is not going to work with the left. You're talking about the democrat who said "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" which is the EXACT OPPOSITE stance the liberal left democrats have today.

DON'T EVEN EVER EVER EXPECT THE POLICE TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY
ITS THE LAW THAT POLICE ARE NOT HERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE INDIVIDUAL ! THE SUPREME COURT SAYS SO.

THE DANGEROUS MISTAKE OF THE LEFT!
NO MATTER WHAT RHETORIC THE LEFT COMES OUT WITH, THEY SPIN THE TRUTH TO GAIN CONTROL OVER GOOD HONEST PEOPLE!
The government can't place a personal police man on every man woman and child in the USA!.. We as Citizens are tasked and responsible for our families and our own personal safety. The US Supreme court has issued the order that the police are not responsible for individual protection of citizens and the citizens of the USA are ordered to not expect police personal protection and to protect themselves.
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any
individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE
ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES On Ju...

OBAMA AND THE LIBERALS GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE KILLED THIS FAMILY!

DON'T EVEN EVER EVER EXPECT THE POLICE TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY
ITS THE LAW THAT POLICE ARE NOT HERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE INDIVIDUAL ! THE SUPREME COURT SAYS SO.

THE DANGEROUS MISTAKE OF THE LEFT!
NO MATTER WHAT RHETORIC THE LEFT COMES OUT WITH, THEY SPIN THE TRUTH TO GAIN CONTROL OVER GOOD HONEST PEOPLE!
The government can't place a personal police man on every man woman and child in the USA!.. We as Citizens are tasked and responsible for our families and our own personal safety. The US Supreme court has issued the order that the police are not responsible for individual protection of citizens and the citizens of the USA are ordered to not expect police personal protection and to protect themselves.
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any
individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE
ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v.Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a
constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous
decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND
GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY
which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to
preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the
general public." Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005 The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order
against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

YOUR GONE! ANOTHER PAIN IN THE ASS LIBERAL SICKO PROGRESSIVE! GOT THAT, I'M YELLING AT YOUR FRIGGIN ASS. ! THANKS FOR THE TOLERANCE YOUR SCREAM SO LOUDLY FOR, THANKS FOR YOUR GRACIOUS LATITUDE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I SAY OR DO THEN CHANGE THE CHANNEL, DON'T TRY TO FORCE ME TO CHANGE MINE TO BE WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT! YOU ARE A CLOSET FASCIST! TAKEN FROM YOUR VERY OWN WORDS, YOU SHOW WHAT A HYPOCRITE YOU TURLY ARE!

"I think people read to much into it and then impose their beliefs on others about it..Especially when they don't understand or think they are the almighty...Its a contradiction when those who say they believe then do the opposite of what it is all about.. Such as judging, calling people sinners, or accusing a person of not believing in it." http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

THIS SURE SOUND LIKE WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND DI TO ME!M BUT YOU SCREAM WHEN IT HAPPENS TO YOU! " HYPOCRITE "

When JFK uttered those words being a liberal was something to aspire to, it was something to be proud of and it meant that you believed in the rights set forth by the constitution and that they applied to everyone. Nowadays liberals/progressives are little more than elitist leftwing fascists. They firmly believe in their own moral and intellectual superiority and they will stop at nothing to force their ideals and their agenda onto everyone, all in the name of the greater good. JFK is probably rolling over in his grave at the state of liberalism in this country. The liberalism we see today is no longer the American form of liberalism it once was. The days of FDR and Kennedy are long gone and the liberalism that exists in America today is more like its socialist European model. It’s an ideology that depends on its ability to create a nanny state; it requires a cradle to the grave kind of dependency from its followers with the political and social elite serving as masters at the top of the pile. This is not the American liberalism of the mid-20th century; it is a perversion of liberal ideas responsible for concepts such as the E.U. and all its social and financial woes.

The supreme court took until 2008 to rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed was even a "right of the people". They then immediately said "But it can be infringed!" That's f***ing stupid.

Dirty politicians trying to make the 2nd amendment mean something other that what it says WILL NOT work.

It took the supreme court until 217 years after the bill of rights was signed into effect to finally establish that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. That's BS. That's unacceptable.

ARMS, as protected, are for KILLING PEOPLE. ARMS, for KILLING PEOPLE, are NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

ARMS must be so good at killing people that they can be used by the people to maintain THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. That includes the retarded definition of "assault weapon" that the media has coined!

Yup...Let's give President John F. Kennedy another success! I wish I knew who killed Him. I would tear Him limb to limb, very slowly. I wonder what condition this Country would be in if He was not assassinated and allowed to serve out his full term. You know, President Kennedy was NOT a fan of the federal reserve. And yes, there is a reason I didn't capitalize any of the federal reserve. Now, We haven't had a president that comes close to John F. Kennedy since. Every one has been cowards, afraid to set a course like President Kennedy. President Kennedy gave this country a goal in space travel. He mobilized this Country and enabled great advances in technology, pride, and fortitude. No one has done that since. Well, I suppose President Regan did with his "Star Wars" laser program. Once again, great strides were gained in laser technology for consumers, medical technology, and defense. But we have been so freakin complacent in trying to improve on things in this country that people just don't have any pride for the United States anymore. When will We the people tell the Government that NAFTA, GATT, and Chinese labor are not in our best interest. These programs are only in the best interest of the Corporations and the rich. Not the common people of the United State...

Yup...Let's give President John F. Kennedy another success! I wish I knew who killed Him. I would tear Him limb to limb, very slowly. I wonder what condition this Country would be in if He was not assassinated and allowed to serve out his full term. You know, President Kennedy was NOT a fan of the federal reserve. And yes, there is a reason I didn't capitalize any of the federal reserve. Now, We haven't had a president that comes close to John F. Kennedy since. Every one has been cowards, afraid to set a course like President Kennedy. President Kennedy gave this country a goal in space travel. He mobilized this Country and enabled great advances in technology, pride, and fortitude. No one has done that since. Well, I suppose President Regan did with his "Star Wars" laser program. Once again, great strides were gained in laser technology for consumers, medical technology, and defense. But we have been so freakin complacent in trying to improve on things in this country that people just don't have any pride for the United States anymore. When will We the people tell the Government that NAFTA, GATT, and Chinese labor are not in our best interest. These programs are only in the best interest of the Corporations and the rich. Not the common people of the United States. We no longer have an automobile that is "Made in the USA", rather, it is assembled in the USA of fan motors made in china, rubber belts made in Malaysia, wiring harnesses made in Korea, and a conglomerate of other foreign made parts all put together in Detroit. It used to be one hand fed the other. A parts company made the block, another made the pistons, another made the spark plugs, another made the spark plug wires...are you getting the picture yet? It isn't just the automobile industry, it is industry in the United States in general. The whole picture cannot be painted here. There just isn't enough room!

This is the sort of extremist nuttery that is bringing this nation to a halt. No one is taking anybody's guns away. You will not have someone knocking on your door asking for your gun.

Not happening. Never was.

JFK said absolutely not one thing about reasonable restrictions on weapons, including the many that were/are in effect during his time in office. He was also speaking about defense of this nation from things like, Russia.

"Although it is extremely unlikely" we will be fighting for our right to vote from another nation (sigh) through a bloody war for independence in order to unveil our democratic republic. He recognized this fear no longer existed. He liked the 2nd Amendment because it provided a place "in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country", against things like the red army.

Lastly, completely misinterpreting the words of a President in a letter to "Guns" magazine (yes, that is where this came from... ) for the "Know your lawmaker" section (still not making it up...) means nothing. Absolutely not one thing. He wrote this in a letter to "Guns" magazine in April, 1960. He wanted votes from the gun lobby in the run up to his election that year.

Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836]:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."